Think Immigration: Immigration Lawyers Need to Keep Pointing Out Things that “Make No Sense”

As part of our efforts to amplify the AILA Law Journal, Craig Shagin and Mia Vejarano share why they were inspired to write their “This Makes No Sense” article published in the newly released Fall 2024 edition of the AILA Law Journal and gives readers a tour of what lies ahead when they open the digital edition. AILA members, access your free digital copy of the Law Journal to read more!

Japanese manufacturers introduced the world to the importance of continuous improvement during the quality revolution. Rather than silently accepting faults in the product or its production process, every worker was encouraged to make ongoing suggestions for improvement. While each suggestion might seem small individually, collectively they drive substantial improvements, significantly elevating quality and transforming the product into something far superior.

But we’re immigration attorneys, not factory workers. So instead of a widget out of sync, we observe inanities in our immigration laws and regulations daily. We just keep moving, working through policies and processes in place at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of State, or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) among others. We comply with things that, arguably to any rational human being, make no sense.

We would like to change this. The first step requires altering a critical habit: speaking up about even the minor faults we observe, rather than remaining silent. Our goal is not to bring about immediate, sweeping changes, but to make small, continuous improvements toward a more efficient system. This is not about giving one side of the bar an edge—it is about creating a system that benefits everyone, today and for generations to come.

In our first article, This Makes No Sense, we highlighted three significant issues:

1. The requirement that individuals detained in immigration facilities must leave the facility to have their I-693 forms certified by a civil surgeon, despite the fact that doctors in the facility are fully capable of performing this work and are under contract with DHS to prevent contagion.
2. The inability of USCIS to grant the equivalent of a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver when it determines that someone, perhaps through no fault of their own, was inadmissible at the time of entry.
3. The ability for DHS to provide parole in place for a respondent following a cancellation hearing, which could help reduce the backlog in the courts.

While none of these changes are individually transformative or earth-shattering on their own, collectively, over time, they will enhance our practice and contribute to a more efficient and rational immigration system. The true value lies not in each change by itself, but in fostering a process of continuous examination and improvement of the system as a whole. This, we believe, makes a great deal of sense.

We hope you enjoyed this post on Think Immigration! We’re always looking for fresh perspectives and voices to join our community of contributors. If you’re an AILA member passionate about immigration and have insights, stories, or expertise to share, we invite you to write for us. Visit our FAQs to learn more about how you can contribute to the conversation and make sure you bookmark our Think Immigration page so you don’t miss any blog posts.